The Return of Doctor X (1939)

Legendary actor Humphrey Bogart is probably one of the most important figures in the history of American cinema, thanks to his unforgettable performances during the 1940s and 1950s in classics like "Casablanca" (1942), "The Maltese Falcon" (1941) and "The African Queen" (1951), movies that took him to the level of superstar as well as transforming him into an icon of the Film Noir genre of those years. However, success wasn't easy for Bogie, as he spent almost the first decade of his film career playing gangsters and cowboys in low-budget movies. As another of Warner Brothers' stock actors, Bogart had to play whatever the studio wanted him to play, and it was in this way when one of the most interesting oddities in Bogart career happened: he was hired to play a villain in a horror movie, "The Return of Doctor X", a b-movie slated as a sequel to 1932 hit "Doctor X".

In this movie, Wayne Morris plays Walter "Wichita" Garrett, a young reporter recently arrived to New York, who is of course looking for the big note that will make him a regular in the newspaper where he works. Finally he gets an interview with the famous theater actress Angela Merrova (Lya Lys), but when he goes to he apartment in order to interview her, he finds her dead. Strange things begin to happen as the corpse disappears before the cops arrive, and even weirder: Angela Merrova appears alive, making Garrett look like a madman. Without a job, Garrett decides to investigate how is possible that Merrova is still alive, and makes a visit to his friend Dr. Rhodes (Dennis Morgan) looking for answers. Together, Rhodes and Garrett will discover the terrible secret behind Merrova's apparent resurrection and the identity of the man behind it.

While it was presented as a sequel, "The Return of Doctor X" is a completely different story that has absolutely nothing to do with the firs movie, as it is in fact, based on William J. Makin's novel "The Doctor's Secret". Written by Lee Katz, the story has the same pattern typical of mystery and horror films of the 30s (which incidentally, "Doctor X" follows too to a certain extent), with a wisecracking reporter trying to solve a case of serial murders; however, in this film the horror elements are toned down in favor of the mystery. The film flows in a very straight forward way, and while there are some interesting additions (the ending has a slight Noir touch), it doesn't move too far away from the typical formula. However, this is the lesser of the script's problems, but more on that later.

Another oddity of this film is that it was the modest debut as a director of Vincent Sherman, who would become a respected director of melodramas in the 40s, and TV series during the 70s. In this his first film, Sherman's skill to direct actors is already evident, although still in a raw form. An actor himself, Sherman is naturally able to bring the best from his cast, and seems specially keen to allow actors Humphrey Bogart and John Litel to show off their talents in the movie. Of course, this is not a masterpiece and Sherman basically makes his movie a tale of murder and mystery by the book; however, it is notable how entertaining the final result is, specially considering the really flawed script he had to work with.

As written above, the acting is very good for a b-movie of its time, with Wayne Morris delivering a very effective performance as "Wichita" Garrett. His very natural presence allows him to make the character work, even at the sillier parts of the script. Dennis Morgan is also quite good, although a bit too melodramatic for his own good. Rosemary Lane plays Dr. Rhodes' love interest, although her character doesn't really have a lot to do in the story. John Litel delivers a wonderful performance as Dr. Flegg, and along Bogart, is one of the highlights of the movie. Finally, it is legendary how Bogie hated to play Dr. Marshall Quesne in this film, but despite he badmouthing this movie, his performance is truly remarkable. This quirky, wicked and bizarre character manage to become very real thanks to Bogart's professional acting.

Sadly, this is not one of the best examples of this style of horror movies, and not because the mystery is easy to figure out (a common trait in films like this), but because the plot's beginning is so poorly constructed that it requires a bit more than the usual amount of suspension of disbelief to accept the event that starts the film (the disappearance of the corpse being unnoticed is a major plot hole). I don't know if this problem was present in the original novel, but it really damages the development of the script. Still, to Kantz' credit, I must say that he manages to make the story work after this awful start and by the ending it really has turned into something better.

Of course, the main attraction of "The Return of Doctor X" is still to see Humphrey Bogart in a rare role as a horror movie villain, however, and despite the many problems with the script, I think that the film has more to its favor than just an against type performance by Bogie. I feel it truly captures the essence of pulp novels of its time, and works almost as a bridge between the 30s Gothic horror and the 40s era of Film Noir. It is not a very good movie, but fans of Bogie won't like to miss it.

6/10

Buy "The Return of Doctor X" (1939)

Doctor X (1932)

By the late 20s, Warner Brothers had already become a major studio thanks to the enormous success of their revolutionary "talking pictures", finally delivering fully synchronized sound and dialogs that could be heard. Soon after this, Warner moved to color as their new novelty, and using the advanced Technicolor Process 3 (which allowed a better use of their two color technology), the studio released a wide variety of films that looked better than the previous Technicolor films, creating a new revolution of almost the same impact as the creation of the "talkies". Among those films was the 1932 tale of horror and mystery, "Doctor X", directed by Michael Curtiz, who in those years was still one of the many studio directors at Warner. Mainly known for his effective (always on time and under budget) and versatile work, this would become the film that proved that this Hungarian immigrant had a style of his own and was able to make films of great success.

There is a serial killer on the loose in New York, committing his cannibalistic murders using a scalpel with surgical precision, and always under the light of the full moon, earning the moniker of "The Moon Killer". While the police still has no idea of who the killer is, they know one important thing about him: the killer works as a scientist at the Academy of Surgical Research. The Academy's director, Dr. Jerry Xavier (Lionel Atwill), decides that in order to avoid any bad reputation for the Academy, he must find who the killer is among the suspects, and asks the Police Commisoner for time to carry on an experiment. Gathering his four comrades in his old mansion, Xavier will try to discover the identity of the killer, as anyone could be the murderer, including himself. At the same time, a wisecracking reporter named Lee (Lee Tracy) finds himself trying to discover what's the mystery at Xavier's Mansion.

The screenplay for "Doctor X" was written by Robert Tasker and Earl Baldwin as an adaptation of a moderately successful three-act play by Howard W. Comstock and Allen C. Miller. The story remained faithful to the mix of mystery, comedy and horror that was popular in that kind of plays, but Tasker and Baldwin enhanced the horror elements of the story, clearly in an attempt to equal the success of Universal's horror movies. While the plot is indeed more focused on horror (including detailed, although not graphic, descriptions of rape and cannibalism), the story remains true to its origins as a play with the inclusion of lighthearted comedy in the shape of Lee, the wisecracking reporter, whose comedic exploits serve to break the tension at several points of the film. While nothing really amazing by today's standards, the story still works very well, with some cleverly written twists and unexpected surprises that spice up the plot.

While the plot sounds definitely like another of those "old dark house" thrillers that were so popular in the 30s, the execution of the film is what truly sets it apart from the rest. For starters, Warner Bros' decision of making "Doctor X" part of their series of Technicolor films allowed director Curtiz to be able to work with the now legendary cinematographer Ray Rennahan, and together they crafted very atmospheric images of haunting beauty. Rennahan's skills with color cinematography works perfectly together with Curtiz' expressionist background in the making of a fast-packed, yet beautifully looking story. As a director, Curtiz was still far from becoming the master who directed "Casablanca", but his classy style can already be seen raw in this movie.

Another of the high points in the film is the casting, starting with Lionel Atwill as Dr. Xavier. Atwill delivers a terrific performance, completely owning his character and giving it a subtle feeling of impeding doom, adding a lot of emotion to the film. Fay Wray is also very good, although like Lee Taylor, doesn't really have anything to do besides playing a stereotype. Preston Foster, John Wray, Harry Beresford and Edmund Carewe are pleasant surprises, each giving their own quirky character a distinct look, and like Atwill, make very believable suspects of the heinous crimes. Finally, George Rosener and Leila Bennett have small, yet very funny scenes that add a lot to the black comedy aspect of the film, and personally, I found them infinitely better than Fay Wray and Lee Tracy.

"Doctor X" is a film that has aged badly, showing a style of mystery stories that is not popular anymore after countless of imitations and variations on the same subject. Lee Tracy's comedic performance is also another of the film's details that nowadays look silly and out of place ( Glenda Farrell would do a better work in a similar role in "Mystery of the Wax Museum", the following year), although then again, this kind of over-the-top performances were the standard of comedy/horrors of those years. It is clear that "Doctor X" is definitely not a classic of the genre in the sense of being innovative or groundbreaking, however, I think that the superb execution of the whole film really sets it apart from the rest, and gives it a special charm that it's hard to ignore.

It's safe to say that this movie pales in comparison to some of the best Universal's horrors of those years, and that the cast and crew of this film surpassed themselves the following year with "Mystery of the Wax Museum", completely overshadowing this film; however, "Doctor X" is an enjoyable movie that shows the days of experimentation with color, and the style of horror of the years prior to the Hays Code. While not a life changing experience, "Doctor X" is a perfect film for a dark atmospheric night, where its haunting colors can shine the most.

7/10

Buy "Doctor X" (1932)

The Mummy (1932)

1931 was truly a significant year for the horror genre, as the release of Universal Studios' classics "Dracula" and "Frankenstein" marked the genre's triumphant entrance to the sound era, and the birth of modern American Horror cinema. While those movies weren't the first American horror "talkies" (Universal's own "The Cat Creeps" was released on 1930), they were the ones that started the "horror boom" of the decade and what's known today as the "Golden Age of Horror". On the wake of this tremendous success, and inspired by the rumors of a supposed "Curse" that surrounded the discovery of Tutankhamun's tomb (in 1922), producer Carl Laemmle Jr. decided to make Universal's next horror hit an Egyptian-themed one. Such was the genesis of 1932's "The Mummy", film that not only would continue Universal's string of horror classics, but also finish to establish Boris Karloff's name as a horror icon and mark the debut as a director of legendary cinematographer Karl Freund.

"The Mummy" begins in 1921 with the discovery of an ancient tomb by an archaeological expedition led by Sir Joseph Whemple (Arthur Byron). In the tomb, they find the mummy of a powerful priest, Imhotep (Boris Karloff), as well as a mysterious scroll. Unaware that the scroll contains an ancient spell able to resurrect the dead, young archaeologist Ralph Norton (Bramwell Fletcher) reads the scroll, bringing the powerful Imhotep back to life, an event that drives Norton insane. Ten years later, Sir Joseph Whemple and his son Frank (David Manners) return to Egypt, hoping to find the tomb of Princess Anck-es-en-Amon this time. With the help of a mysterious man named Ardath Bey, the archaeologists find the tomb, but Bey is actually Imhotep, whose interest in helping the Whemples came from his desire to find his forbidden long lost love, the Princess. However, the revived priest will be surprised when he meets Helen Grosvenor (Zita Johann), a young woman who seems to be tied to Anck-es-en-Amon in some form.

Writers Richard Shayer and Nina Wilox Putnam had the mission of developing the Egyptan-themed horror film, however, their inspiration came not from Egypt, but from the rumors and tales about occultist Alessandro Cagliostro, from which they developed the film's story. John L. Baldeston, who wrote the screenplay, would be the one whom added the Egyptian theme Laemmle desired. "The Mummy" rehashes several key themes of Browning's "Dracula" (also written by Baldeston), mainly the romantic triangle between a young couple and an ancient supernatural figure, however, this theme receives a considerably different focus by the amount of humanity present in the character of Imhotep (when compared to the predatory Transilvanian count), making him a complex, almost tragic figure in spite of being a powerful villain. This complexity, together with the way the Mummy is developed as an ever present supernatural force of evil (unlike the shambling, silent undead servant of posterior Mummy films) makes Imhotep one of the best written villains in 30s horror cinema.

Despite being hired to direct the film only two days before filming started (and also being his first job as a director), Karl Freund makes a more than competent job in putting the whole thing together, bringing the story to life with a powerful, visually stunning style very much in tone with the atmospheric touch of mysticism the story exudes. Being a cinematographer himself (in classics such as "Der Letzte Mann", "Metropolis" and "Dracula"), it's not a surprise that Freund had put to excellent use the work of cinematographer Charles J. Stumar, giving "The Mummy" a highly atmospheric look that brings back memories of the German Expressonist movement of the 20s (in which Freund played a big role). However, this look is not only played for an atmosphere of dread, but also to enhance the surreal dark fantasy elements of mysticism that are at hand in the story, completing the feeling of constant menace that Karloff's Imhotep brings to the screen. While Freund's personality clashed with his cast, it's commendable the fact that he managed to bring great performances out of them.

The acting through the film is for the most part of great quality, with the cast doing a very effective job in their respective roles. Horror icon Boris Karloff is simply outstanding as the ancient Imhotep, a role that finally allowed him to showcase his talent for horror in a speaking role (his previous characters in the genre had been silent). Filling the screen with a powerful commanding presence, Karloff is frighteningly believable as the 3700 years old mummy, willing to do whatever is necessary to be reunited with the love of his life. If Lugosi's eyes in "Dracula" are the ones of a primal, animal-like evil force of nature, Karloff's eyes transmit the sharp intelligence of a centuries old evil mastermind. Opposing Imhotep is Edward Van Sloan as Doctor Muller, who comes to aide the Whemples in their fight against Imhotep. Van Sloan is truly in his environment, once again playing the wise man of science determined to face the occult without skepticism. The beautiful Zita Johann is wonderful as Helen Grosvenor, and makes her character to be more than a mere damsel in distress.

In fact, the only weak link in the cast comes in David Manners' somewhat bland performance as Frank Whemple, as Manners is not only easily overshadowed by his fellow cast-mates, but also at times his character's personality becomes a tad annoying, showcasing an attitude that seems out of place in the film (although this last thing may also be the writers' fault). Still, the film's only real problem is, in my personal opinion, the way the last half of the movie becomes too close to be a complete rehash of Browning's "Dracula" for its own good. While "The Mummy" offers a completely different kind of mystique, a more surreal mood and a humanity not seen in Browning's film, the twists and turns the plot has in its final part feel almost like a carbon copy, making the film lose some steam by the time it reaches its climax. The fact that Van Sloan and Manners play essentially the same characters they did in the 1931's classic do nothing but to enhance this feeling of watching a remake of "Dracula" with an Egyptian setting.

But still, that's just probably a minor complain, as while both films are indeed very similar in their plots (and cast), they are also very different in terms of how the concept is developed, and truly the enormous differences between Lugosi's Dracula and Karloff's Imhotep (I wouldn't say one is better than the other, let's leave it at "different") are more than enough to make those movies completely different experiences. Director Karl Freund wouldn't enjoy a long career as a director, not because a lack of talent, but because cinematography seemed to be his true love (and he developed huge improvements in that department). Fortunately, before retiring he managed to deliver another masterpiece of horror: 1935's "Mad Love". While probably of lesser impact than Tod Browning's "Dracula" and James Whale's "Frankenstein, Karl Freund's film is definitely in the same league as those two classics of the genre.

8/10

Buy "The Mummy" (1932)

L' Homme à la tête en caoutchouc (1901)

In less than 5 years, the cinema had made a gigantic jump from the short "documentaries" of the early pioneers (Le Prince, Dickson and the Lumière brothers) to the amazing Cinemagic of french director Georges Méliès, who became one of the first filmmakers to focus entirely in making fiction movies. Ever since he watched a movie for the first time (as a member of the Lumières' first audience), Méliès was convinced of the enormous potential of the new invention as a form of entertainment, as as soon as he could he started to make his own films. By 1901, stage magician Georges Méliès had already 5 years of making films and experimenting with special effects, and his movies were well-known around the world as the finest films of his time. With his many discoveries in the field of special effects, Méliès was able of making films that looked like real magic, and his movies became more complex with time, and even more fascinating.

"L' Homme à la Tête en Caoutchouc" (literally, "The Man with the Rubber Head") is another one of Méliès' many "trick films", which were short movies that showed him making an impossible magical trick. In this movie, an alchemist (as usual, Méliès himself) is preparing a strange experiment in his laboratory. The alchemist puts an odd devise on a table, and connects it to his bizarre creation: a living copy of his own head (Méliès again) that stands over the table without a clue about what will happen to it. Using an air pump he connected to the head, the alchemist begins to blow, and the living head begins to increase its size as if it was a balloon made of rubber. The head reaches a gigantic size, but the alchemist decides to release the air from it as he fears the head may explode. Proud of his invention, the alchemist decides to show it to his assistant (quite probably played by his wife Jeanne d'Alcy, but this is not confirmed), but the assistant may not be as careful as he was.

As in many of his early shorts, this movie is a "gimmick film", in other words, a movie devised around a special effect in order to show it like a magician would make a trick. In this case, the movie combines an excellent use of multiple exposures and editing to create the two heads, and a remarkably creative use of zoom to create the illusion of a head increasing its size. While a quite simple trick to our modern standards, the effect achieved is one of Méliès' most amazing and better done special effects, making "The Man with the Rubber Head" one of the best "gimmick films" in the Cinemagician's career. However, this short is more than an excellent gimmick, as what makes "The Man with the Rubber Head" different from his earlier films (and the similar movies of his competitors) is the care Méliès put to create a "story" to his trick.

While in his first films he simply appeared as a magician doing his show, in this movie there is a set build for the scene (instead of a simple circus stage), and while simple, the movie is clearly set in the middle ages. This gives the movie a distinct atmosphere, and already shows the path that Méliès was taking at that stage in his career, as that very same year he would start making his now famous series of fantasy films, which would be far more complex than his "gimmick films". One can say that it was with in those movies where Méliès tested his craft before making his masterpieces like "Le Voyage Dans la lune" the following years.

8/10

The Evil Dead (1981)

If there really is a decisive factor in the making of a movie, without a doubt that would be creativity, because as in every art, on creativity depend the way the other available elements will be employed. For example, the way budget will be spent will depend on it, and therefore whether a desired effect for a scene will get done with what the budget allows. And while it could be assumed that creativity is an integral part of the film-making process, there are times when it seems as if literally there had not been any drop of creativity in the whole movie; but of course, there are also movies in which it's pretty noticeable that at the time it was done, a marvelous overdose of creativity filled the film's cast and crew. Sam Raimi's feature length debut, "The Evil Dead", is one of those movies. After nearly 4 years of shooting with limited budget, producer Robert Tapert, director Sam Raimi and actor Bruce Campbell created "The Ultimate Experience In Grueling Terror", still one of most influential horror films of all time.

"The Evil Dead" is the story of five friends, students at Michigan State University on a trip to a cabin in the woods for a weekend of nothing but fun. Everything seems to be going nice until they stumble upon a bizarre looking book and a tape recording while searching the basement of the cabin. Out of curiosity, they decide to play the tape, not knowing that this event will unleash powerful demonic horrors from the woods as the book happens to be a legendary black arts grimoire named The Book of the Dead, and the tape contains the incantation to resurrect demons. The forces of evil begin to terrify the youngsters, determined to kill them and possess their bodies. At first everyone is in disbelief, but after one of the girls, Cheryl (Ellen Sandweiss), is brutally attacked by the woods, her brother Ash (Bruce Campbell) and his best friend Scott (Richard DeManincor) begin to take the spirits more seriously. However, the night seems eternal and Cheryl is now possessed by the Evil.

Written by director Sam Raimi, "The Evil Dead" had its origin in "Within the Woods", a previous short film done by Rami (also with Tapert and Campbell) about students fighting demonic possession deep in the woods. In "The Evil Dead", Raimi keeps the same basic premise, but fleshes out the story with the addition of an interesting mythology centered around the quite Lovecraftian concept of the Book of the Dead (the sequels would reinforce this by naming the book as Lovecraft's "Necronomicon"), which opens the door to fantasy elements and allows Raimi to go wild with many imaginative concepts that result in making "The Evil Dead" more than the typical story about demonic possession. And while at its core the plot is truly simple (and the characters are also pretty basic), the movie's mix of horror and black comedy truly works, mainly because it never takes itself too seriously and always keeps a sense of self-awareness without becoming a parody of itself.

Now, while the story may not be the most complex or profound, the directing of the film is truly where the film shines the most, with Sam Raimi's highly inventive camera work using the camera to not only create the proper atmosphere, but as a character itself, making it the point of view of the unseen forces that lurk in the woods. Using this style, Raimi toys with suspense in great fashion, once again proving that sometimes "less is more". Nevertheless, "The Evil Dead" is not exactly a subtle horror film, as while the atmospheric camera work plays a big role in the movie's success, most of the film's charm really comes from its wild scenes of shock and gory horror. Tom Sullivan's impressive makeup is another of the film's highlights, as he made wonders with the shoestring budget the crew had to work with; and finally, the special effects by Bart Pierce (and Sam Raimi himself) are, while dodgy and somewhat poor, very well done for the budget and more important, in harmony with the non-serious tone of the film.

The acting isn't really anything special, and some would even say it's downright poor, but personally, I think it's not exactly bad, just plain average, in the sense that it just what's necessary to get the job done and nothing more. In his first time in role that would give him cult icon status, Bruce Campbell is very effective and gives one of the best performances in the film. Always with the tongue firmly in cheek, Campbell makes a good "hero" and it's no wonder that his cool yet sometimes silly Ash J. Williams would become a legendary character in the sequels. Ellen Sandweiss is also great as Cheryl, a character that has to endure a lot of what Raimi and company prepared for the film. The rest of the cast is probably less lucky, but actually not that bad. As Scott, Richard DeManincor has some good moments and while probably of a less shocking nature than Sandweiss' scenes, Betsy Baker and Theresa Tilly also made a good, albeit somewhat restrained job.

It's fair to point out that given the long production time the film had, many actors weren't available through most of the shooting (only Campbell was consistent), so many times someone else (among them Dorothy Tapert and Ted Raimi) would step into the role. While the acting may feel at times amateurish (it's perhaps the worst thing about the film), the cast always seems to be having fun, which I think it's something that helps the movie to keep that campy tone. Like the acting, the special effects aren't exactly top notch, but again, Raimi uses this to the film's advantage and just keeps everything very surreal, on a fantasy level that allows him to take this liberties. Drawing inspiration from many sources (zombie films, the Three Stooges, Lovecraft's books and Jack Woods' 1970's film "Equinox", among others), Raimi conceived a roller-coaster of horror and gore (and goo) that despite its many shortcomings, it's simply very entertaining, and I guess that in the end it's that what really counts.

I guess "The Evil Dead" is truly one of those cases when one either loves a film or completely hates it, but no matter how one feels about it, I think it's hard to deny that what Raimi, Tapert and Campbell (and their crew) pulled off with their very limited budget is nothing short of amazing, in the sense that with nothing more than their creativity and willpower, the three friends created a film that had more ideas than what's usually seen in independent horror (even today). "The Evil Dead" marked the beginning of Raimi's career, and while he became a major director thanks to the great commercial success of his "Spider-Man" films (20 years after unleashing the Evil in the woods), to many horror fans and aspiring filmmakers, his "Evil Dead" is still the proof that sometimes all a movie need is heart.

9/10

Buy "The Evil Dead" (1981)

Vampiro: Angel, Devil, Hero (2008)

Life in pro wrestling is tough, as even when the show has a heavy dose of melodrama and elements of performing arts, it's still a very demanding sport that can have several damaging (physically, mentally and emotionally) consequences for the wrestler, and not only because of the injuries the body receives during a match, but also because of the pressure of the business. And this is something that Ian Hodgkinson, better known as Vampiro, knows better than anyone. Hodgkinson, a young Canadian man with the dream of becoming a wrestler, decided to travel to Mexico in the late 80s to follow his dream, and suddenly he found himself being one of the country's biggest pro wrestling stars of all time thanks to his unusual style and looks. But after being a popular icon of Mexican wrestling, life would take "El Vampiro Canadiense" ("The Canadian Vampire") to experience more than one real life body-slam. And this is what Lee Demarbre's documentary, "Vampiro: Angel, Devil, Hero", attempts to capture.

In "Vampiro: Angel, Devil, Hero", Demarbre showcases the human being behind the Vampiro persona, following him in the European tour he made in preparation for the opening of his own company, "Revolution X"; and then remains close to him as Vampiro prepares the very first event his company is going to produce: a big match in Guadalajara, Mexico, the city he now calls home. At the same time, "Vampiro: Angel, Devil, Hero" explores Vampiro's past, including interviews with his family, friends and the people who has known him since his humble beginnings in Ontario, Canada. Revolving around this three main "storylines", the film uncovers the wrestler's atypical life, including the story of how a young Canadian man ended up being Mexico's biggest wrestling star in the early 90s. Finally, through the eyes of Ian Hodgkinson, "Vampiro: Angel, Devil, Hero" gives insight about the business and the life of pro wrestlers in general, which isn't always as fun as the show may lead one to believe.

An interesting feature of the film is that, while Demarbre's frequent collaborator Ian Driscoll worked as a writing consultant, there isn't any voice over to narrate what's going on other than Vampiro's musings as he leads the crew across his everyday life. Not even even when dealing with Vampiro's past Demarbre uses this resource, as he just lets Vampiro and his other interviewees narrate the story in their own words. This approach creates a more intimate look to the topic at hand, as through the stories one is able to discover Vampiro's different sides, offering a window to his mind without glamorizing him (although certain sentimentalism crawls into the picture at some points in the film). Demarbre makes a great job in bringing the real Ian Hodgkinson, the real Vampiro, to the screen, as even when he had not been able to avoid acting out a bit (as a natural performer like him would do), a real feeling of truth embodies the film most of the time, specially during the chronicle of "Revolution X"'s first event.

A consummated fan of Mexican wrestling (as one can notice in his wildly funny feature length debut, 2001's "Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter"), director Lee Demarbre manages to give the film that mystique that surrounds Mexican Lucha Libre; and while Vampiro isn't exactly the typical fighter of Mexican pro wrestling (his look and style are definitely different from the one of classic legends such as Santo or Blue Demon), the whole audiovisual style, including Michael Dubue's great score (mix of surf rock and Spaghetti Western music) and Petr Maur's art direction, is quite fitting. The leaps in chronology, while probably a tad confusing at first, are well handled, and serve to add variety and a sense of suspense to Vampiro's odyssey as an independent promoter. Demarbre's film-making has matured and grown a lot since his "Harry Knuckles" days, but this movie proves that he has kept that freshness and good humor that earned him a name in the independent film circuit.

Overall "Vampiro: Angel, Devil, Hero" is a remarkable documentary, but by no means is a perfect movie. Personally, I think that the film's biggest flaw is that despite consciously (and constantly) trying to avoid the romanticization or glamorization of Vampiro's life-story, at times it gets a bit too sentimental for its own sake. It could be that such thing it was unavoidable, given the hard times and difficulties Vampiro really has had (and still has) to overcome in his life, but still at times that bit of melodrama manages to creep into the film. Still, the way Demarbre keeps the most emotional elements for the last act really help to keep the balance of the film. Other than that, the movie is pretty much a very complete documentary about Ian Hodgkinson, "El Vampiro Canadiense", and the very unusual story of his life; as well as about the many difficulties wrestlers in general must face after their time at the top of their popularity has passed.

Gritty, hard, tough, but always with a good sense of humor (like Vampiro himself), Lee Demarbre's "Vampiro: Angel, Devil, Hero" is probably one of the best documentaries about pro wrestling ever done. While it offers a really inside look at the way matches are prepared and choreographed, it never loses the respect for the sport and the athletes that perform in it. Through the film, one ends up with the feeling of having met an old friend in Vampiro, which for a documentary about somebody's life is probably the main goal. So this angel, devil, hero really wins the match. Hopefully, future will be bright, not only for filmmaker Lee Demarbre, but for Vampiro as well.

8/10

Happy Birthday Hitch!

A day like today, 109 years ago, one of the my most favourite filmmakers of all time was born: Alfred Hitchcock, the one and only Master of Suspense. I remember vividly the first Hitchcock film I saw, "Psycho", his most popular movie. I was 14 years old and dissapointed with what cinema offered at the time, decided to give old movies a try and rent a few thatlooked interesting (or that I had previously read about them) for a weekend. My three choices for that weekend were Tod Browning's "Dracula", James Whale's "Frankenstein", and Alfred Hitchcock's "Psycho". The Hitchcock film was the one I saw first and I was just hooked by the very beginning. The powerful musical intro by Bernard Herrmann together with Saul Brass' visuals was just unlike anything I had seen before. I had seen my fair share of old classics, but this was different. Maybe I had matured, but that was the first time I saw cinema as an artform, not just enterteinment. And the film was glorious. Still is. It's probably th emovie that I have seen the most times (saw it three times that first weekend. Now I see it religiously at least once every year).

I bought the film as soon as I had the chance. And kept hoping that one day I could see more of the Master's work. After "Psycho" and that powerful Universal Horror combo, I became a cinephile, and began the travel through the past, discovering and rediscovering cinema, as I saw it now under a new light. Movies I liked before now I loved even more, and some I liked were now dissapointing. But the magic could be present everywhere. Later, when DVD became more accesible, I saw the chance of finding more from Hitchcock and yes, with the release of his most famous American films by Universal and Warner Brothers, I finally was able to discover what was so mysterious about uncle Charlie, why was Guy Haines so afraid of Bruno Anthony, what was the meaning of the plane dusting crops, and how beautiful a woman named Grace can be. Despite his disdain for actors, Hitchcock introduced me to some wonderful one, such as the above mentioned Princes of Monaco, Cary Grant, Jimmy Stewart, Peter Lorre, Teresa Wright, Henry Fonda, and many, many more. I still have more films by him to watch (his early British period, but hopefully I'll watch them soon), and I'm sure the trip will be interesting.

In a way, my whole cinephilia exists thanks to the day I put the "Psycho" tape on my VHS. For that and more, today this humble blog remembers Sir Alfred Hitchcock, the Master of Suspense, who would be 109 years old if he was alive today. So like any respectable cinephile would do, I present now my list (oh, the lists!) of favourite films, by the legendary filmmaker:

5) "Psycho" (1960)

Even when the plot and twist is so deeply ingrained in our collective mind, it STILL is a powerful experience. With self imposed limits of budget and resources, Hitchcock proves that a low budget horror b-movie can be a masterpiece, with the proper directing. A landmark of horror (it played a key role in the developing of the slasher subgenre, as well as inspiring the filmmakers of the 60s and 70s), "Psycho" may not be really perfect (not even on its initial release), but it's so enjoyable that it feels perfect in every way.

4) "Strangers on a Train" (1951)

Two men meet on a trip by train and one comes up with a novel idea: one man will kill the other's "biggest problem", and since they are not related, it'll be a perfect crime. Suspense is the key here, as while one (Guy Haines, played by Farley Granger) of the two refuses the proposal, the other (Bruno Anthony, a marvelous Robert Walker) won't take a no for an answer, and so a battle of wits between the two begins, with Bruno Anthony haunting the Guy's world, and consuming every piece of it. And it all started with the meeting of two strangers on a train.

3) "Rope" (1948)

Hitchcock famous "one take" experiment is often labeled as a merely a gimmick (because of the film's concept of attempting to look as if no editing had been done, with everything in an apparent one long take), however, "Rope" is one marvelous film, gimmick or no gimmick. What I like the most is the dynamics between Dall, Granger and Stewart, and the subtle (ok, not so subtle) hints of homosexuality that Hitchcock managed to put in fron of the censors... and they didn't notice it.

2) "Shadow of a Doubt" (1943)

A dark story about the horrors at home in the story of the visit that the favourite uncle, Charlie, pays to a quite dysfunctional family. Everything looks fun, but as time goes by, the young daughter, also named Charlie (who idolizes her uncle), begins to suspect that her favourite uncle may actually be a serial killer. I love everythign about this, but most of all, it's gorgeaous Noir look, and the whole concept of horror entering a small town in order to corrupt it. And the whole suspicion thing, which just works perfectly. I must admit I fell in love with Teresa Wright in this one.

1) "Rear Window" (1954)

Probably the film that best captures the Hitchcock style of black comedy. Sure, he made "The Trouble with Harry" as a straighforward, in-your-face black comedy, but I feel that it is here where it works the best, as part of a bigger story, the story of a man paralyzed in his apartment, who begins to suspect that his neighborh has killed his wife. The whole thing about vouyerism is just marvelous, and well, what can I say about Jimmy Stewart and the beautiful Grace Kelly. Just perfect.

George Lucas in Love (1999)

Director George Lucas is without a doubt one of the most important filmmakers of the 70s, as while his body of work is often considered of lesser quality then the work of other members of his generation, it is by far the most influential in the field of science fiction thanks to the creation of "Star Wars", the epic saga of fantasy and sci-fi that changed the way people looked at sci-fi movies. With "Star Wars", Lucas created not only one of the most bankable franchises in history, but also a story that has inspired countless sci-fi aficionados across the world. Since "Star Wars" is nowadays a defining element of pop culture, it is not a surprise that it is often referenced in other works, sometimes as a homage, others as a parody, and sometimes as both. Joe Nussbaum's short film "George Lucas in Love", is probably among the best of the homages/parodies "Star Wars" has received across its history.

Set in 1967, "George Lucas in Love" is the fictional story about how Lucas created "Star Wars" during his last year as a student at USC. Lucas (Martin Hynes) is suffering from writer's block as he tries to shape his still unnamed space opera. Lucas has only three days to finish it or he won't graduate, but he is unable to begin writing as he can't make it work. He tries desperately to find inspiration in college, and even asks for advice to his odd professor (Patrick Kerr) but nothing seems to work, until he meets Marion (Lisa Jakub). Marion is a young girl (with a strangely familiar hairdo) who admires Lucas' previous shorts, and thinks that he is talented. Lucas finds his muse in Marion as she encourages him to write about what he feels and just follow his inspiration.

Written by Nussbaum himself along with Daniel Shere and Timothy Dowling, the film is of course a spoof on the premise of 1998 film "Shakespeare in Love", a movie detailing William Shakespeare struggle with writer's block. Filled with countless references to "Star Wars"' first film (as well as other works by Lucas), the screenplay is very well-developed for an 8 minutes short movie. While of course there are a couple of plot holes in the story, they are devised that way to be more funny references to Lucas' legendary space opera. The story unfolds nicely in its short time and always remains focused on its spoofed themes. Unlike most similar parodies, it never relays on cheap attacks and takes its subject with a very fresh intelligence.

It is worth to point out that director Joe Nussbaum shows his love for the "Star Wars" movies without being too respectful and staying true to his comedy roots. Working nicely with both visual gags and jokes referencing Lucas' biography (and future filmography), Nussbaum creates a very creative movie and showcases his very promising talent for comedy. He also knows the limitations of his medium, and exploits the joke to the most without making it boring or tiresome, and always keeping that light hearted approach that gives the movie a really appropriate touch of sweetness. True, the film shows some of the common problems of short films, but the movie shows that Nussbaum truly put a lot of work in this "calling card" that it's not a surprise to discover that he has started a career as director of comedies. To tell the truth, Nussbaum manage to do more in 8 short minutes than many filmmakers do in 90.

The cast if truly effective and one of the reasons the movie works so nicely. Martin Hynes is excellent as George, playing him as an intelligent writer, but lacking a bit in his social skills (without a doubt a play on the stereotype of "Star Wars" fans). Lisa Jakub is not only beautiful as Marion, but also adds a lot as one of the most experienced members among the cast. The rest of the cast appears briefly, but most tend to leave a lasting impression as not only the script allows them to shine, they truly make the most of their small roles. Particularly funny is Patrick Kerr (another of the experienced members of the cast), as Lucas' professor who may be the inspiration for a character famous for its odd way of speak.

"George Lucas in Love" is definitely not the work of a genius, but it's truly amazing when one considers it was conceived as a student film. Nussbaum finally began his professional career as a director in 2004 with the teen comedy "Sleepover". Story says that the success of this modest short film played a major part in he being hired by Dreamworks, and personally, I wouldn't be surprised if that were true, as this movie is definitely something special. Hopefully Nussbaum will deliver another comedy as good as this short, as "George Lucas in Love" seems to be only the beginning of a very promising career.

8/10

Mad Love (1935)

The legendary Karl Freund is definitely better known for his highly innovative work as director of photography, resulting in an extensive career (spanning across 5 decades) of beautiful and pioneering cinematography. With a body of work as impressive as his (ranging from Lang's "Metropolis" to TV's classic "I Love Lucy"), it is understandable that Freund's work as a director gets so easily forgotten. The fact that he only directed 10 films in his career also plays an important factor in this, however, at least 2 of his directorial efforts easily rank among the best horror movies ever made. The first one of the two (incidentally, his first work as a director in America), 1932's "The Mummy" is really the most popular, given that it is also one of the best performances by horror icon Boris Karloff; however, it is in the second one where Freund's talents really shine, making this last movie as a director his final masterpiece.

Loosely based on Maurice Renard's novel, "Les Mains d'Orlac" (literally, "The Hands of Orlac"), "Mad Love" is the story of Dr. Gogol (Peter Lorre), a brilliant surgeon deeply in love with a beautiful theater actress named Yvonne Orlac (Frances Drake). When season ends, Yvonne announces her retirement, and this prompts Gogol to finally meeting her. Unfortunately for Gogol, Yvonne tells him that she is actually married to concert pianist Stephen Orlac (Colin Clive). Saddened, Gogol leaves, but a bizarre turn of events will make him meet Yvonne one more time: Stephen has lost his hands in a terrible train accident and only Gogol's expertise will be able to save him. While he saves Stephen's hands, the operation begins to have serious side-effects, not only in Orlac, but also in Gogol.

While the screenplay was written by P.J. Wolfson, John L. Balderston and the usual assortment of contributing writers, the movie is mostly the work of Guy Endore and Florence Crewe-Jones, who made the adaptation from the French novel. Endore was a regular writer for MGM at the time, and helped to write other MGM's horrors like "Mark of the Vampire", "The Raven" and "The Devil-Doll"; it is his style, mix of Gothic and pulp novel what flows through the movie, although he remains true to the essence of Renard's classic horror novel. Renard is often credited as being the "inventor" of the Mad Scientist archetype, and truly gives a great use to it in his novel; appropriately, "Mad Love" keeps this psychological drama between characters and brings it to life, spending considerable time detailing the characters and their relationships, building up the necessary tension for the grandiose finale.

After directing several melodramas and comedies in a row, "Mad Love" allowed Freund to once again return to his expressionist roots and create a haunting tale of horror and madness in almost the same vein as his earlier classic, "The Mummy". Unlike what would be expected of a cinematographer, Freund dedicates as much attention to the non-visual aspects of the film as he does for the visual imagery, playing with the many different elements that form the bizarre love triangle of the film. The story itself focuses a lot in psychological themes, ranging from neurosis and hysteria, to compulsive obsession and dangerous psychosis; Freund makes great use of this themes across the movie, although it is obvious that he prefers the character of Dr. Gogol to the other protagonists of the film. Like Im-Ho-Tep the mummy, Dr. Gogol is driven by the mad love he feels for a woman, but unlike with the mummy, Freund makes sure to never fully transform Gogol into a monster, making him very human and frighteningly realist.

Peter Lorre's acting is essential for this last element in Gogol's persona, and he delivers one of this most amazing performances in his career. While lesser known than his characters in "M" or in "The Maltese Falcon", Dr. Gogol is certainly an iconic Lorre character that truly showcases Lorre's versatile talent. Frances Drake is surprisingly great, showing great emotion and excellent domain of the scene, giving her best to avoid being overshadowed by Lorre in their scenes together. Colin Clive, who would become famous as Dr. Victor Frankenstein in James Whale's films, delivers a truly effective performance as Orlac, but I found that Freund seems definitely much more interested in Dr. Gogol and his antics than in the pianist's neurosis, leaving few space to Orlac's growing insanity. Still, Clive does a very good performance despite the limited screen time his character receives when compared to Gogol.

It is probably this last point what truly stops this movie from being a classic of horror, as with a runtime of barely 68 minutes, it feels too short and gives the feeling that something was missing (perhaps a few more scenes with Colin Clive) in this psychological thriller. It's not really a big flaw in the end, but I truly was expecting to see the wonderful story being explored a bit more, as personally I felt it somewhat incomplete. On a different business, and as expected in a film by Karl Freund, the cinematography is simply brilliant, Chester A. Lyons and Freund's protegé, Gregg Toland (who would become a legend on his own), are in charge of it and devise one of the most beautifully looking horror of the 30s, easily on par with Freund's job for Universal.

It's a shame that studios were more interested in Freund's work as a cinematographer than as a director, because "Mad Love" proves that there he truly had talent as a consumated filmmaker too. Who knows what would had Freund directed after this movie, specially considering the great improvements in cinematography he went on devising through his long and successful career (his work on the popular TV-series "I Love Lucy", creating the simultaneous three-camera way of shooting, revolutionized Television and still is the de facto standard for sitcoms). As it is, "Mad Love" is the final statement of a master who simply wasn't allowed to make more films (although who knows, probably he wasn't interested in directing), but it is nice to see him retiring with a top notch masterpiece.

9/10
-------------------------------

Dial M for Murder (1954)

After earning an Academy award nomination for her performance in John Ford's 1953 tale of romance and adventure, "Mogambo", the beautiful actress Grace Kelly proved that she was way more than just a pretty face and that there was real talent behind her image. However, what truly took her career to new levels were three now classic films she made directed by the legendary Master of Suspense, Alfred Hitchcock. Under his direction, Kelly made an integral part of the Master's films, becoming the perfect embodiment of Hitchcock's idea of a female protagonist. While Kelly debuted two years earlier in the classic Western "High Noon", one could say that it was Hitchcock who really introduced the beauty and talent of Grace Kelly to the world. "Dial M for Murder" was the first of Hitchcock's films with Kelly, and a movie where once again the Master returns to a familiar theme: the perfect murder.

The movie is the story of Tony Wendice (Ray Milland), a former tennis player married to the beautiful and wealthy Margot (Grace Kelly) and living in an nice apartment in London. Life is good for Tony, until he discovers that his wife is cheating on him with an old flame of her, famous crime novel writer Mark Halliday (Robert Cummings). After that discovery, Tony spends a whole years plotting the perfect way to murder his wife in order to inherit her money, carefully planning every detail of the crime. When Mark visits London again, Tony finds the perfect chance to set his plan in motion, and as planned, he recruits Charles Swann (Anthony Dawson) to kill his wife. However, bad luck and a sudden change of events will test Tony's plan's infallibility as, just as Mark points out, human action can originate flaws even in the most perfectly devised plan.

Like most Hitchcock's films, "Dial M for Murder" was an adaptation of another art-form, this time a popular play by Frederick Knott. As Knott was also the writer of the screenplay, the movie remains extremely faithful to the play, although of course, not without its differences. Knott's script is wonderfully constructed, as like in the play, the dialog is witty and simply captivating, with many twists and turns that spiced up the complex plot and keep it from being boring or tiresome. An interesting feature of the movie is that oddly, there are no black and white morality in the characters, and it's easy not only to sympathize with Margot (despite she being cheating on her husband) but also to sympathize with Tony (despite he wanting to kill his wife), as the characters are wonderfully developed with very detailed personalities.

It seems that Hitchcock's knows that the dialog is the highlight of the play, as he deliberately focuses on his actors and uses an elegant camera-work to frame the whole movie inside the apartment. The movie literally is shot entirely in one single room (only two other sets are used, and only briefly), but Hitchcock's classy way of using the camera allow a highly dynamic flow that never lets the movie be tiresome. This is also very helpful as Hitchcock just lets his characters keep speaking, carefully describing actions and events (when other directors would use flashbacks) in a similar way to a what the real play would be. While this approach could easily get boring, Hitchcock's use of colors and overall visual imagery simply creates the perfect medium to allow Knott's dialog to shine.

Without disrespecting John Ford or Fred Zinnemann, I think that it was Hitchcock who finally could allow Kelly's talent to shine beyond her physical beauty. Grace Kelly makes her character shine with her subtle and restrained performance, specially showing her skill in the second half of the film. While often Kelly receives top honors in this movie, it is actually Ray Milland who makes the whole movie work with his suave and charming "villian". Milland's performance is simply terrific, making his character nice enough to win the sympathies of the audience, yet still frighteningly intelligent as the mastermind of the plot. John Williams appears as the Inspector in charge to solve the complex puzzle, and delivers a classic performance as the Enlgish gentleman decided to find the final answer. Only Robert Cummings seems miscast as Mark Halliday, although a lot of his weak performance could be blamed to Milland, Kelly and Williams overshadowing him with their excellent work.

In many ways, "Dial M for Murder" shares many things with "Rope", as not only the two films are based on successful plays, they are also about committing the perfect murder and oddly, they are both "experiments": while "Rope" was conceived as a "movie in one take", "Dial M for Murder" was done as 3-D movie. Sadly, the interest in 3-D was dying when the film was released, so few theaters carried the movie complete with the gimmick; a real shame, as Hitchcock's use of the technology, unlike most 3-D films of its time, was conceived as a way to enhance the claustrophobia of the Wendices' apartment instead of using it to merely shock the audience with "stuff coming out of the screen" (as seen in for example, "House of Wax"). While not too fond of the gimmick, Hitchcock truly gave it a good and intelligent (albeit subtle) use to it.

"Dial M for Murder" is probably less celebrated than the Master's most famous movies, the fact that it came out the same years as "Rear Window" (again with Grace Kelly) may have had something to do with it too. While a subtler and more restrained tale of suspense, this is still the Master at his best, as the movie proves that when he was at the top of his game, no other director was comparable to him.

9/10

Buy "Dial M for Murder" (1954)